Dinnertime

pic-dr · February 13, 2012, 06:05:47 PM

Thanks Bambi, and everyone else!

OK, now I think I've got something to show that looks good to me--that last pic also looked blue-skinned. This one doesn't. :)

Aanders · February 13, 2012, 09:58:11 PM

Hi Larry,
I thought I would point out something I noticed. The woman with the blue jacket on appears to have her feet crossed in the original damaged photo. In the restored photo her shoes appear to be be side by side or perhaps a side view of one shoe? Also the shoes appear to have a bit of color on them, mostly the one? This is just an observation, not sure if it is that important an element in the photo or not. Good job so far.

Angela

pic-dr · February 13, 2012, 10:50:50 PM

Hi Angela,

I Had to smile when I read your post--because I agonized over the 'sneakers' thing. After looking at it around a thousand times, I finally came to believe that the lady's left foot was on the floor, and the right was on the pedestal leg of the table. (I've had a table like that one, and always did the same thing) You're certainly right that there is color on the right shoe, but after looking at that many times, I concluded that the red you see is damage.

Of course, I could be wrong about both, but that area was so badly damaged, it was really hard to tell, and I'm still not positive. I tried to use what was left of the laces on the one shoe, and put some of that on the other, but your guess is as good as mine--at least. :-\

Thanks for the input, and hope to hear more from you!

kiska · February 14, 2012, 05:03:40 AM

This is rough but might be the way the woman's feet are. Her right foot IS resting on the table leg.

pic-dr · February 14, 2012, 12:40:17 PM

Thanks for solving that riddle kiska!

I'm posting the latest version--I've darkened the lady's shoes and made a few other minor mods to the shoes, modifying the heel on the left foot for one--but I didn't put the red into the sneakers, because I'm convinced that is damage.

Any further suggestions on this one? I keep finding more damage in places I hadn't noticed it, particularly on the wood, but because the entire photo had a 'film' over it, it would be nearly impossible to get all of it. Does the work I've done on the faces pass muster?

pic-dr · February 15, 2012, 04:32:25 PM

OK, this is the latest version. Would someone please tell me if it's ready to send in, or if I've missed something? I've toned down the brightness of the shoes and repaired the chair in the foreground, as well as cleaned up as much damage as I could find.

Thanks!

Larry

schen · February 15, 2012, 05:27:05 PM

Larry,

You did a good job cleaning up the damage.

The faces of the two female and the hand of the woman in blue are flat in your final image. Although the original looked washout but they still retain the contour. You may want to preserve these three part in the original.

Shujen

pic-dr · February 15, 2012, 08:34:25 PM

Hi Shujen,

I tried several times to do what you suggested--after duplicating the original, and using that as the background layer, and putting the last version I posted on top of it to mask it, I experimented with the opacity of the eraser, but no matter how lightly I used the eraser brush, the original pale color of the faces kept showing though, and was far less appealing than the version you see above. The best way I can describe the faces was washed out.

If you think I'm doing something wrong, I'd be grateful to hear how to correct it, but it was difficult (at least for me) to get a satisfactory result. The 'trade off' between losing a very small amount of detail on the faces or having a more natural color to them convinced me that I was getting a better result this way. But as I said, I am very willing to try a method that gives a better result.

Mhayes · February 15, 2012, 10:04:27 PM

Larry,

I don't want to answer for Shujen, but couldn't help but wonder at how you are approaching this and also your final conclusion of:

QuoteThe 'trade off' between losing a very small amount of detail on the faces or having a more natural color to them convince me that I was getting better result this way.

It may seem like a small detail, but I'm not so sure I would call this a "more natural color" as a painted face makes it looks like she got hit with Calamine lotion. When you loose detail underneath then you have a painted look and there is no variation, but rather a flat color and no shading.

To each his own on choice of tools, but the one tool I never use is the "eraser" tool as it destroys pixels. Maybe you didn't mean the eraser tool, but using the brush on the layer mask and bringing back the layer below?

What you could have taken was the version before the painted face version and added a blank layer above it>change the layer's mode to "Color." The reason you change it to color is that it will add color but the contours and shading will stay intact and you won't have a flat painted face. Double click on your foreground color panel to brink up the color picker. Just for an example I did that and picked a very soft pink: R:233; G:182; B:222. I then went above and on my soft brush I used 54% opacity and a flow of 50% and then brushed in the color on the girl's cheeks. I then went to layer's panel and lowered the opacity to 63%. This added color and the facial features are still in place. With this version you could have it now as your bottom layer and then drop your latest version on top. Next add a layer mask (reveal all--mask is white) and then with your brush, hit X which will make your foreground black, paint over the face that will conceal the painted one and show the other one. Do not use the "eraser tool" as once you do that you can't undo it except maybe by backing up the history.

I think the rest of your restore looks good. I have a link that explains the different modes in PE: http://www.northlite.net/ps/blend.htm

Margie

pic-dr · February 15, 2012, 10:44:12 PM

Thanks for all the help Margie, I'll work on that tomorrow. :)

Yes, I was painting black to expose the faces in the background, which was the original. Because I was using the original pic, the faces were green. That is what I meant when I said the painted faces were more natural than the originals. I don't know if you remember the comments that were posted that recommended I paint the faces because they were so washed out. That's why I did that. But I get it, and will work on it.

Larry

Mhayes · February 15, 2012, 11:44:21 PM

Larry, it you paint in black you are concealing not exposing the layer below. You don't want to use your original pic, because that one was not color corrected. Just go back to the one you have color corrected, but not painted the face. I know it get confusing by using the word "paint." Perhaps the word "color" would be better and you would know that usually that means the layer mode's says "color." That way you don't destroy detail on the layer below. Yes, I remember that it was recommended to add some color to the girl's faces, because one they were blueish and very pale. However, that doesn't mean taking a paint brush and going over the face where you get rid of the texture below. There is a big difference between the two.

Margie

pic-dr · February 16, 2012, 08:46:39 PM

Hi Margie,

Here is the latest effort with the faces fixed. I had to use the black brush to conceal the face portions of the layer mask, which was the last picture I posted, overlaid over the last version with the colors of the faces fixed but not painted, otherwise the faces are unchanged and the features preserved.

I only retained a tiny bit of color by "painting" black on the layer mask at 50% because in the original picture the face on the left was blown out by the flash, and I didn't want to deviate much from that. I think the result is pleasing.

Larry
PS, I have corrected the hand also, I realized I missed it after seeing it in the light-box.

Mhayes · February 16, 2012, 11:19:50 PM

Hi Larry, I think this look much better. Now I think you need to upload back to your distributor and see what she thinks and then its on to QC for review.

Thanks,

Margie

schen · February 19, 2012, 04:50:05 AM

Larry,

Their faces look much better now. I would do the same to the right hand of the lady in blue.

By the way, I think her left slacks probably went down a little more like Kiska had suggested.

Shujen

pic-dr · February 19, 2012, 11:41:58 AM

Thanks Shujen, I've already taken care of the hand, (see bottom of my last post) using the same technique as on the faces. I'll take another look at the jeans, although there is no real way that I'm aware of to know what they actually looked like due to the damage that obliterated that portion of the jeans.

Larry